“the British turned against slavery only when steam power and other advances made the harvesting and refining of sugarcane far less labor intensive”
This passage from the Salon book review below makes the British decision to outlaw slavery seem a bit less connected to a moral epiphany in British society, and due more to the changes occurring because of industrialization. Does this observation have any historical merit?
There are two immediate problems with this theory;
Slavery was simply never a major going concern in Great Britain itself, which is where steam power was so instrumental in creating its industrial revolution, and
Britain began moving against slavery by outlawing the slave trade in 1807, well before the peak of industralization.
I think it would be foolish not to acknowledge that tolerance for slavery was directly related to the prevailing economic order’s dependence on it, but it’s equally absurd to assert morality didn’t come into play; questions of morality were much of the reason the U.S. had a civil war and thsu abolished slavery when it did. Great Britain got on the right side of that question before the USA did, and there’s no point denying it.
In addition, American sugar planters were still using slave labor right up until the Civil War, so as late as 1860 machinery hadn’t made slave labor obsolete with respect to sugar cultivation.
Cohen could perhaps make a stronger argument by tying the drop in the “usefulness” of slavery to Britain to the loss of the mainland American colonies, not to the Industrial Revolution. But in either case, it’s an overstatement to imply that the British turned against slavery only because they had no further use for it.
They had less use for it, and that made it easier for moral arguments to carry the day.
I’ve long held that steam power and subsequent advances were the real reason for the fall of slavery throughout the world. Certainly there were antislavery folks and societies before that – but they were in the minority. The major powers were effectively slave holders. Certainly slavery lasted some time after industrialization began – social inertia is a stubborn reality and change takes time. But I can’t see any other reason for slavery to disappear from almost everywhere it had been practiced on a large scale within less than a century of the effective introduction of steam power. People certainly didn’t get more moral. Mechanization is certainly more effective and reliable than slavery (engines don’t rebel, and don’t require the same kind of overseers). When it’s a widely-used technology with support structures in place, it’s cheaper, too.
The problem lies in seeing this as if “England” (or any other country) was all one person, that could or would change its course in such a complex moral and economic and social decision all at once. there are forces pulling in both directions, and rooted interests that want to see things kept as they are. eventually such forces can lead to war, and did in the case of the US.
when cartoonist and author Gahan Wilson waas asked what he thought the Power Source of the Future would be, he answered “Slavery”. I think he was trying to be darkly sinister, as his cartoons are. But if we should manage to fall into another Dark Age somehow, I think he may be right. Much as we’d like to think we’re above that sort of thing, and would revert to some sort of shared labor Shaker-like system, there are forces and personalities that would push things toward slavery, if need be, to maintain a large workable society.
I don’t think the argument holds. In the New World, at least, slavery stopped long before any kind of serious industrialization had taken place. While the indurstrial revolution was certainly opngoing, it had not affected those countries directly. And of course, elsewhere in the world slavery continues side-by-side with modern technology.
In the areas where outright slavery still exists, the “modern technology” basically consists of the overseers sitting in a jeep with a gun (neither of which is manufactured locally) instead of sitting on a horse with a whip.
Like hell. What do you think the Civil War was about? Not to mention plantation agriculture in the Caribbean and in South America. Slavery or some sort of peonage binding people to weork the lands stayed around for a long time.
Slavery currently exists as a relatively minor affair – The large developed nations don’t practice it. I suggest that it remains in pockets where it does give some economic advantage where getting regular mechanical services still has some difficulty (for from cities and industrial areas), or machines still can’t serve the purposes (maids), or there’s an additional advantage to be gained (subjugation and humiliation of other groups).
I do not think that slavery disappeared because we got more humanitarian or moral (and neither the Old nor the New Testament, nor the Koran, denounce slavery). So why else did the world give it up about the same time, after having practicecd it for thousands of years?
See the Wikipedia article for a quick intro to slavery:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery
As you can see, slavery continued even in Western society at least until the very end of the eighteenth century, with Britain and other countries abolishing it in the 19th. The US was a relatively l;ate holdout, all things considered, with its abolition occurring as the result of a war in the 1860s.
I think France has the overall best claim to renouncing slavery on philosophical grounds with its abolition in the New Republic. The Industrial Revolution was just getting underway. Of course, the IR arguably helped fuel the French Revolution in the first place. But had it collapsed, I wonder how long France would have remained slave-free.
Eh? That would be my point. It occured before industrialization in the American South, as well as in Mexica, and Central and South America.
Late compared to what, exactly? The U.S. was leading the way in terms of the New World. One thing to remember: it’s true that the British were not dependant on slavery. neither was any other western nation. And many which abolished in the parent country retained it in their colonies. It took longer for slavery to be abloished there than in Europe.
???
When do you think industrialization took place? the U.S. had steam-powered railroads and factory equipment in place long before the Civil War. In fact, some have argued that the Industrial Revolution actually strengthened slavery, since it was now easier to de-seed and spin cotton (which still had to be cultivated and picked by hand). it may have given slavery a temporary boost, but the situation couldn’t last – industrialized cotten farming was eventually practiced, but the Civil War came first.
Late compared to Europe and even many other american countries, for reasons given above.
And make no mistrake about it – much of Britain’;s fortunes resulted from slavery-based enterprises in the colonies. It was out of sight and out of mind to many of the English directly, and so was slower to get booted out, but it did get booted out of the colonies. In the 19th century. When there was mechanization to replace human muscle.
Maybe it was the Enlightenment.
Throughout the centuries, there have been many humane organizations and movements. But the operations of large countries and empires have been largely ruled by practical concerns, in large part because they could muster large forces and resources, and, if they didn’t, some competitir would. In a pre-Industrial world, slave labor produced wealth in excess of that needed for subsistence, or even subsistence and a prudent store for emergencies. Slavery persisted even in Church-sponsored organizations (see the Wikipedia link). Many Spanish clergy fulminated against the slavery practiced on the Caribbean and American people, but it didn’t affect the plantation system.
Nothing changed until an alternate power source emerged to replace human and animal muscle.
Not primarily in the South. Or in South America. It’s true that it was beginning, but the IR wasn’t a major economic factor in those specific areas at the time.
What does this have to do with the economic theory of abolition?
I think you need to recheck some dates. Britain abolished it in the colonies in 1833, France in 1848, the U.S. in 1865. Not a huge difference in timespan, given the political variables between the countries. It’s true that the U.S. was behind European countries who had no major slave-holding segment of society, but the U.S. was rather different. Brazil, and other South American nations, did not abolish slavery until after the Civil War, and even then often only because they wished to avoid a similar bloodletting.
Actually, mechanization didn’t replace much of the slave production: sugar, cotton, and other slave-economy products were mechanized. And of course, it’s also true that the colonies, ironically, were not very productive or helpful for the mother country. The benefits of industrialization most certainly didn’t take up the slack, and those economies remained relatively rural for decades to come.
France abolished it in France during the first Republic, and later in its colonies. See the Wiki article about other abolition dates – some places ended slavery before the US
I don’t for the life of me see your point – Industrialization was taking place before the nineteenth century. The industries were, as you say, mechanized, but necessarily only after the industrial revolution made it possible. Slavery hung on for a while because of social inertia, but eventually disappeared. Industrialization “didn’t take up the slack?” Using steam- and then gasoline-powered tractors to till the earth, tend, and harvest crops doesn’t count for anything? That’s the whole point. Machines are more reliable, take up less space, and require less overseeing than a dormitory system of slaves and slave-watchers.
here’s a for instance:
sugar Cane has to be processed in a mill. Typical milling requirwes the tough cane to be shredded and washed. If you’re near a millpond, maybe you can use water power. But originally, it took human power:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_cane
Come the early nineteenth century you had steam-powered mills that could be located anywhere, and which could run off the waste cane:
http://www.makingthemodernworld.org.uk/stories/the_age_of_the_engineer/03.ST.02/?scene=7&tv=true
Yes, I know it talks about the harvesting with slave labor – the ame as cotton in the American South. But you’ve freed up all that labor needed for an even more labor-intensive process, the milling. eventually you can use mechanical harvesting as well. (although even today a lot of harvesting is apparently done by hand) But mechanizatioon has made a difference, and a not insignificant difference, either.
There was little or no need for slave labor in the British Isles, but Britain had a huge and growing empire. The colonization of Africa, India and Australia, wold have been much cheaper, faster and easier with slave labor.
So, don’t be so quick to discount the economic sacrifices Britain made when slavery was abolished.
This statement is absolutely, indisputably correct, but still sufficiently misleading that I won’t accept it without context. It’s like saying that Cecil Adams hasn’t beaten his wife since June 5, 2002—perfectly true (I hope), but still misleading.
There have always been moral objections to slavery, but it flourished in 1750 and was all but extinct by 1950. What changed? Technology. End of story? Not quite . . .
By way of analogy, consider the ice man. He no longer practices his trade. Why not? Because of electric refrigeration. One can say that technology ended the profession of ice man, with no elaboration.
Slavery wasn’t like that. It never vanished of its own accord. In every country where it no longer exists, it had to be abolished. At the time of its abolition, it was still profitable enough to be widely practiced. If there were no moral objections to slavery, it would probably still be practiced in a few niches in Western societies today.
Technology was the factor which changed, which allowed principle to override profit and abolish slavery. But to cite it on its own as “the real reason” for abolition, as in your post and in Cohen’s even more cynical formulation, leaves the impression that principle played no role, which is incorrect.
If the British were opposed to slavery, why was the Enfield rifle musket the typical firearm of the Confederate Army?
The same reason lots of modern dictatorships use M-16s.
I didn’t quite understand the connection until I read the link.